jiosed to necessitate the fixing of the date of composition of the Song of Songs in the early decades after the reign of Solomon. Neither of these arguments, however, proves anything, for tliere is nothing in them but what is readily explicable even on the view of a late date, especially if we may regard it as settled that the author derived his material from the story of Abishag. Besides, it is very questionable whether the conceptions of local, personal, and other rela- tions are so lifelike, and in general so accurate, as to pciinit or justify the inference that the poet lived near to the time with which he deals. Tirzah and other places that enter on occasion into his descriptions were, of course, not outside the sphere of knowledge even of a poet belonging to a. later age. — The strongest objection, however, to placing the Song of Songs so early is presented by cer- tain linrjuistic phenomena that characterize it. The form of the relative pronoun (i:') and other peculiarities of expression may, indeed, be ex- plained on the view that the Song of Songs was composed in North Palestine, the language of which was doubtless dialectically dillerent from that of Juda'a, and more akin to the neighbouring Ar.imaic dialects. But the Persian loan-word cna (4") and the word IVien (3"), which in all jiroba- bility is borrowed from the Greek ipopuov, cannot possibly be explained at so early a period, liut rather compel us to come down to the Macedonian era (cf. on this point especially Driver, JMT^ p. 449 f.). The poet was tnen in all i)robabiIity a member of the Jewish community in Jerusai jin, and lived at a time when, through contact with the Greek world, the adopticm of Greek terms had become possible not only in the language of daily life, but also in literary usage. It is of course dilTicult, or rather impossible, to fix the ti.rminiis ad quern for the composition, and we do not intend to propose even a tentative date. One point, how- ever, may be noted. The general tone of the whole poem appears to imply that the time when the Song originated was a time of peaceful, we might say happy, repose for the conimunity, when love coulil unhindered follow after love ana finally rejoice in the full possession of its object. — And now, perhaps, at last we may hazard a conjecture. It is true that purely dramatic poetry is in general alien to the Semitic mind, and, although we felt compelled to maintain the dr.imatical cliaracter of the Song of Songs against all objections, yet we found it necessary also to make our recognition of the presence in it of the lyrical element, which is the fundamental charactsristie of all Semitic poetry, by calling Canticles a melodrama. The question naturally arises. Whence came the author's stimulus to compose this melodramatic ])oem ? Was it from a wiile contact with the (Jreek world ? This appears to the present writer not impossible.
LiTKRATCRR.— All the principal aiittioritiea are mentioned in the body of the article. We may add Chuyne's art. * Canticles * in Encyc. iIiV>/tca (practically in ayreeinunt with Kuiide), wiiich appeared since the abo\ c was written ; and W. Ricdel, Di« iiiieMf, Aitntegung d. Ilnhdxi. 1S98. Fnrtiier rcfercnccB to literature may W found in Driver'fl LOT^ p. 43(1 ; C. D. (Jine burg, Ttu .^owi oj Son'iu, with a Cotnm, hutoric^l and crilv-ai, 1867; and E. Keuus, Getch. d. heil. Schriflen all. Trtl. % is.) ft.
.1. W. HuTllSTKIN.
SONG OF THE THREE CHILDREN.— See Tukee
CHII.DKKN (SONO OK THE).
SONS OF GOD. — This expression is nsed in Scripture in two distinct senses. l'"or one of these see articles Adoption, and GOD (CHILDREN OF). The other is found in six passages : Gn C, Job 1« 2' 38' (all o-,-iSi<(n) •}? ; LXX in first three ol i.yyt\oi. ToC dtov, in last i-f^e\oi iiov), Pi> 29' 89' W (both o''?t< -11; LXX viol Otov) ; cf. in the
598 SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING
SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING
fing. Dn 3™ ri^^-i;, RV 'a son of the gods.' The meanin" is ' sons of tlie 'ilohim or 'dim ' in the sense of niem))ers of that class or race (cf. ' sons of the prophets ' = members of the projilietic guiki) of which God Himself is the preeminent '£/dhim (see A. B. Davidson's note on Job 1"). Hence the expression is practically synonymous \vith ' angels ' (cf. LXX above). The only passage where any difficulty has been felt (and that only for dogmatic reasons) about interpreting the phrase in this way is Gn 6'^. On^elos, Beresh. rah., Saadya, Ibn Ezra, et at., take it to mean there 'sons of princes,' 'uitghty men'; Theod., Chrj-s., Jerome, Aug., Luther, Calvin, Hengsten- berg, et al., understand by 'the sons of God' the ^>ious (Sethite) portion of the human race, which IS opposed to the (Cainite) 'daughters of men.' Neither of these interpretations suits either the context or the usage of the Heb. phrase. The interpretation ' angels ' is coiTectly taken in Jude * and 2 P 2*, in the Books of Enoch and Jubilees, as well as by PhUo, Jos. {Ant. I. iii. 1), and most of the older Church Fathers. J. A. Selbie.
SOOTHSAYER, SOOTHSAYING.—
The Heb. for ' soothsaying ' is cp;?. Qppp, Gr. /^arvi/*, ^c«vn7«v, tiatttefjLeL (the last term being also used to tr. [?0J ' augxiry,* Nu 2323 II Crp). 'Soothsayer* is Drp, which in Is 32 is rendered by rr6x»f^'-(' The Arab, kaiama means properly * divide or portion out.* Hence kisjnet is a man's apportioned lot or destiny. The word piy^ is another a1t«mative expression not easy to distinguish from opp (see below). The term V^>'^' is always closely connected in the OT passages with 3iK, and will be dealt with under * Necromancy ' in art. Sorcery. The other terms cb"in (see below) and the Aram, jntj (Dn 227 4' 6^ do not possess a clear connotation.